IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17729 of 2025 ======================================================

Dinesh Ram S/o Ramdeo Ram, R/o Village-Daranagar, Post-Daranagar, P.S.

and Block-Nauhatta, District-Rohtas ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.

3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Dihri, District-Rohtas at Sasaram.

4. The District Supply Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram.

5. The Block Supply Officer, Nauhatta Block, District-Rohtas at Sasaram.

... Respondents ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr.Ramadhar Singh, GP 25 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER

2 22-01-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s) :

“(i) To issue an appropriate order/s, direction/s including a writ preferably in the nature of CERTIORARI for quash the order as contained in Memo No. 663, dated 17-09-2025 issued by the learned S.D.O. Dihri, District- Rohtas at Sasaram (Hereinafter referred to as Licensing Authority under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) order 2016) whereby and where under he has cancel the fair price shop license of the petitioner for committing illegality and irregularity in distribution of food grains amongst to the consumers. (ii) To direct the respondent NO. 03 the S.D.O., Dihri, Rohtas to restore the P.D.S. dealership license of the petitioner henceforth with taking into the consideration that the same is only means of earning livelihood.

(iii) To any other relief/s to which the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that the Sub-Divisional Officer while issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner has not enclosed the enquiry report and there is no proposal for cancellation of the license in the show-cause notice.

4. Learned counsel has stated that non-mentioning of the proposal for cancelling his license is contrary to the provisions of order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Order, 2016’).

5. Further learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.253 of 2014 dated 11.03.2015 wherein this Hon’ble Court has held that the non- supply of the enquiry report along with the show-cause is bad and against the principle of natural justice and equity. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that petitioner has taken the above ground in the appeal, but the appellate authority has not dealt with the above ground and dismissed the appeal in a mechanical manner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment of the Full Court passed in CWJC No.21202 of 2021 and analogous cases dated 26.09.2023 to buttress his contention that non-mentioning of the proposed action in the show-cause notice is bad in law and contrary to Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016.

8. Learned counsel has stated in view of the above mentioned provisions of law and judgments relied by the petitioner, the impugned order may be set aside and matter remanded back to the authorities concerned for issuing a fresh show-cause notice in terms of order 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016 and also furnish a copy of the enquiry report along with the said show-cause notice and thereafter take necessary action.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the writ petition and stated that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing a revision before the Commissioner. Learned counsel has therefore p